Robert Pattinson in David Cronenberg's "Cosmopolis"

Robert Pattinson has replaced Colin Farrell as the lead in "Cosmopolis," which is written and directed by David Cronenberg(Eastern Promises, A History of Violence), and is based on a novel by Don DeLillo.

"Cosmopolis" follows a multi-millionaire on a 24-hour odyssey across Manhattan. Pattinson will play the asset manager who loses all his wealth over the course of one day.

Marion Cotillard (Inception, Public Enemies) will play his wife. Paul Giamatti is also part of the cast. The $20.5 million film will shooting from March to May in Toronto and New York.

As much as I like David Cronenberg (for some movies, not all) ... Robert better not f*ck around with this role. He has a chance to do something with it and show he's got acting chops, not just tween looks and a lackluster charasmatic presence.

"As much as I like David Cronenberg (for some movies, not all) ... Robert better not f*ck around with this role. He has a chance to do something with it and show he's got acting chops, not just tween looks and a lackluster charasmatic presence."

Wow, the last line proves that you're a faggot(Not that anyone doubted).

Pattinson is one of the worst actors out there.
Won't be long enough before he spirals into oblivion and ends up as some washed up druggie/"actor".

Pattinson is one of the worst actors out there.
Won't be long enough before he spirals into oblivion and ends up as some washed up druggie/"actor".

@jake What are you basing this theory on? Surely not twilight coz he played the part like they wanted him to girls love him and its made them sh*t loads of money so how could he have done better. If you watch the films where he actually acts you'll see he's quite talented so shut up and go play with your mums dead cancerous corpse you f*cking retarded cliche of an american c*nt before i swim across the atlantic and sh*t on your doorstep.

No need to answer to a sicko like you("your mom's dead cancerous corpse", wow), but just stating that he's pretty much terrible.
His lamentable act in the movie Remember Me(especially the scene with him losing his mind in the office and the classroom) pretty much ascertains his lackluster "acting chops"

Jake_Awesomeness writes:
on January 6th, 2011 at 8:51:20 AM
"As much as I like David Cronenberg (for some movies, not all) ... Robert better not f*ck around with this role. He has a chance to do something with it and show he's got acting chops, not just tween looks and a lackluster charasmatic presence."

Wow, the last line proves that you're a faggot(Not that anyone doubted).

Pattinson is one of the worst actors out there.
Won't be long enough before he spirals into oblivion and ends up as some washed up druggie/"actor".

@Jake Awesomeness

I'm not going to make fun of your avatar name, so this is going to be me being a nice person.

My opinion is that Robert Pattinson hasn't shown that he's nothing more then eye candy for emo-girl tweens with Twilight. He hasn't developed any depth in his ability to really act, which is what his career is.

I may make fun of Daniel Radcliffe, but he's willing to play against type of Harry Potter by the someone risque Equus, which showed that he could act in a different enviroment.

When Robert's with David, David brings out the best of his actors (like what he did with Viggo in A History of Violence, Jeff Goldblum in The Fly and even Jeremy Irons as twins in Dead Ringers). He better express more depth to his acting, rather than relying on something that the producers probably pressured him to do in the Twilight series, which is use his physical looks as a crutch.

Are you honestly comparing a veteran like Irons and a decent actor like Mortensen with Pattinson?

And, talking about eliciting "great performances", you need to be intrinsically good in your art in order for the director(in this case) to tap it's full potential.
Pattinson is pretty much one-dimensional(like any other first year acting students/incompetent novices) and does not even compare to recently praised actors like Tom Hardy, Ryan Gosling or Joseph Gordon Levitt.

haha try sitting at a desk 8 hours a day and not get angry at ignorance there only words, in another order they would be meaningless.

Anyway i agree with Max about him having more potential and remember me's not exactly the best platform for oscar performances i can see that there's more to him.

However i dont agree with "I may make fun of Daniel Radcliffe, but he's willing to play against type of Harry Potter by the someone risque Equus, which showed that he could act in a different enviroment." I think Radcliffe, regardless of his choices, will always be a sh*t actor which im not saying is his fault he's obviously not going to stop getting payed millions of pounds. It's probably down to him having slight autism or whatever the posh f*ckers got but he definetly cant act.

Jake_Awesomeness writes:
on January 6th, 2011 at 11:06:40 AM
Are you honestly comparing a veteran like Irons and a decent actor like Mortensen with Pattinson?

And, talking about eliciting "great performances", you need to be intrinsically good in your art in order for the director(in this case) to tap it's full potential.

Pattinson is pretty much one-dimensional(like any other first year acting students/incompetent novices) and does not even compare to recently praised actors like Tom Hardy, Ryan Gosling or Joseph Gordon Levitt.

And he looks like a drugged gopher for crying out loud!

@Jake Awesomeness

Okay, let's take your arguement and look at it this way ....

Tom Hardy : Brilliant in Bronson. Very good in Rocknrolla.

But when he starred as Jean Luc Picard's clone in Star Trek : Nemesis, would you have seen that potential ? That necessarily wasn't his "break-out" performance. He was simply getting his cinematic feet wet, after starting of the HBO mini-series Band of Brothers, the ensemble piece Black Hawk Down, which would have equalled his talent with any of the current and veteran actors at that time and a movie about the Legionnaires called Deserter.

Joseph Gordon Levitt ? Talented ? Without a doubt. His breakout. That's a contention. Some say Brick, some say The Lookout.

But when he was on 3rd Rock ? Nah. It was comedy. Popular, but he never got to get out and touch other genres like he has now until after their seasons ran to an end.

Ryan Gosling ? Half Nelson. That's when people noticed.

Robert is not really good. Not even fair. But if he has time to develop his craft, like Joseph and Tom did and take it seriously in finding out what genre he is good at, then you never may know.

I'll be watching. If he f*cks up that Hammer film (which is from a company with a long tradition of decent B movie horror), then I'll stand up and agree that Harry Potter/Daniel Ratcliffe is a poofter and should be drawn AND quartered.

Or that his next line uttered should be " You want fries with that ? "

If you're talking about actors who were mere fledglings when they started then enjoyed an ascension in popularity and recognition then there isn't a single concrete theory to corroborate that fact.

Look at Johnny Depp.He was always a talented actor.But didn't enjoy A-list fame till Pirates showed up.Even before that he had acted in a cheesy horror(Nightmare On Elm Street) but surpassed expectations with Ed Wood, Blow and that one movie with Al Pacino(Donnie Brasco, something).He was "always" an amazing actor.
Unlike Pattinson , who for some inexplicable reason enjoyed skyrocketing fame thanks to fat, besotted girls but does not have the acting skills to match it.Vapid and insipid, he doesn't stand a chance.

Cinemaisdead writes:
on January 6th, 2011 at 11:30:21 AM
@max well put mate, even jeff bridges made a few sh*t ones, nobody took colin farrell seriously until in bruges. Sometimes actors peak or the director draws out something they never new they had.

I'll be waiting for the day he destroys one of my favourite stage plays woman in black with his irritating stuttery posh voice

@CinemaisDead

If I caught him in Othello playing Iago, it might actually keep me awake.

Not a slight on Daniel, I've just been worn out with reading/watching Shakespeare.

.... I wonder ... Daniel in Deathtrap, the Ira Levin play ? He could play the Caine role, as the washed up hack and have a chance to develop his acting ability in the process.

"jeff bridges made a few sh*t ones, nobody took colin farrell seriously until in bruges.

"

BS.
Bridges' parents were in the showbiz already and that in a way inhibited his initial career trajectory.
And Farrell was nothing special in In Bruges.
Snagging a Golden Globe doesn't always signify your acting prowess.

And you keep posting that he will inevitably be a decent actor.
Sorry, that twilight homo sucks big time.

Jake_Awesomeness writes:
on January 6th, 2011 at 11:31:46 AM
If you're talking about actors who were mere fledglings when they started then enjoyed an ascension in popularity and recognition then there isn't a single concrete theory to corroborate that fact.

Look at Johnny Depp.He was always a talented actor.But didn't enjoy A-list fame till Pirates showed up.Even before that he had acted in a cheesy horror(Nightmare On Elm Street) but surpassed expectations with Ed Wood, Blow and that one movie with Al Pacino(Donnie Brasco, something).He was "always" an amazing actor.
Unlike Pattinson , who for some inexplicable reason enjoyed skyrocketing fame thanks to fat, besotted girls but does not have the acting skills to match it.Vapid and insipid, he doesn't stand a chance.

Jake Awesomeness

Robert Deniro. It took him ten years to go from co-starring with Jill Clayburn in The Wedding Party to getting the role that would win him his first Oscar, Don Vito Corelone in Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather, Part II. And it would be another year before Taxi driver elevated his star status.

But if you were to ask me if I have seen any of the three 'listed' movies he's been in before The Wedding Party, I can honestly say no. Why ? Because I know that they might not be that good, if they haven't been circulated with the high regard of the studio that made them, the director who filmed it or the producers who financed it.

Every actor has that possibility to ascend beyond the label that has been thrust upon them. But to do so, they have to take risky roles that play against the type and then ACT. Show emotion. Really become the character.

You bring up an excellent example. Johnny Depp. He played Donnie Brasco, a real life mafia guy. He also played George Jung, a real life drug runner. And Hunter S Thompson, a real life gonzo journalist.

Now, if I was 16-17 and watching 21 Jump Street at the time (when he was one of the stars), would I have EVER seen him as Hunter S Thompson ? Probably not.

Every role they take can either make or break a career, despite their past. Because fans will only appreciate the work that the actors puts in that connects with them.

And I agree with you right now about Robert. He isn't showing any progress as an actor.

i didn't think so either but the subtle acting in brujes showed me he does some of the stuff on purpose and has quite good comedic timing. I don't think pattinson will be an amazing actor on the same level as any of the above i just think he's better than average, his bbc dramas have all had sh*t screenplays and ideas and having studied acting myself for 10 years im confident that he's more than 2 dimensional. How good he is only time will tell and his choice of roles. Fat twihard fans may be retarded but he must have some kind of charisma to create that kind of response surely. Johnny Depps one of the greatest actors of our generation and i know he won't be on his level but some actors like max said go unnoticed until a defining role.

He's blown everything up until this point and NOW you expect him to do something. Yes.

@Sleuth1989

Is Robert lousy ? Sure.

But he's being sought after by David Cronenberg, known for very well crafted movies collaberates with Viggo Mortensen, an actor's actor and has been called the most audacious and challenging narrative director in the English-speaking world.

He better pull his game up to an A-game ability or else.

But I expect for him to get better, one way or another.

Otherwise, he may want to consider another profession of work.

Sorry for getting back to you so late. I was returning back from lunch.

Most actors start off doing sh*tty roles. Cruise started out doing crap, as did Pitt. Neither of them landed Oscar-award winning gigs for years, and AFAIK, Pitt has never received nearly as much elitist acclaim as he might like, though you can't deny he has improved substantially over the years and has taken on far better roles than initially.

The fact is, no one knows what Pattison has to offer. Schwarzeneggar was a terrible actor until Cameron improved upon him substantially, and as Arnie seasoned over the years.

Some actors start off in teen gigs, and that's one way to go. Most of the directors involved with Twilight haven't had the talent or ambition, or motivation, to transform a substandard actor into something better.

Take a look at how di Caprio has improved over the years under the repeat tutelage of Scorsese.

Look at how some actors started off in great roles only to fail along the way.

Look at people like Clooney who have no talent beyond the ability, really, to act as themselves, yet they're well accepted and handsomely patronized.

Pattison's success comes down to maybe two or three things. One, innate talent, and I believe he has some, and I believe it's way too early to say he's a bad actor, 2, his personal life along with his choices of roles, and 3, whether he encounters a willing muse and patron that gives him the room and leverage to adapt and refine whatever talent he may possess.

Hating Pattison just because he has appeared in Twilight is an ignorant reaction to man himself.

I dont know if it is his choices or his agents choices, but he doesnt seem to want to do anything but dumb dramas, and for that fact alone I dont have much faith in him. he may surprise me, but he has some serious acting to do to get there.